About Paul Spoerry

I’m a groovy cat who’s into technology, Eastern Thought, and house music. I’m a proud and dedicated father to the coolest little guy on the planet (seriously, I'm NOT biased). I’m fascinated by ninjas, the Internet, and anybody who can balance objects on their nose for long periods of time.

I have a utility belt full of programming languages and a database of all my knowledge on databases... I practice code fu. Oh, I've also done actual Kung Fu, and have a black belt in Tae Kwon Do.

A loaded firearm must always be in your control especially when conceal and carrying in public. When loaded mine is always under my control and strapped to me. A horrible event but some errors were apparent here.

This is tragic, however it's one of those freak accidents that unfortunately happen in life… I live in Arizona, maybe 4 or 5 months ago there was a 9 year old girl at a shooting range..

The girls parents were there and there was a certified and competent shooting instructor showing her how to shoot.. Sadly the young girl was shooting a full auto UZI 9MM, with the instructor standing just behind her and to her left she pulled the trigger, with the recoil and it being full auto, she couldn't control the weapon bringing it left, shooting and killing the instructor..

I feel so bad for this family. And the child. Hand gun, weapon safety is more important than locking your car, than anything if you are to own one. But here we go again. I'm deeply sadden'd but shake my head in frustration.

Once again the great society I am not down on guns everyone should have five or six but the fucken lawless ness we have becomefucken 3 rd world this is so unreal I have been Hayden its not new York or st Louis we Rep what we sow Paul spoerry getthe fucken smile off your face when you post something like this maybe the kid was trying to stop a crime you should not have a gun your a asshole unwiped at that I hope a black cloud over your house for 2015

+Bunny Voodoo Bun I was following this on a different post. There are a lot of missing parts to this story.My biggest question is. How does a two year old toddler discharge a revolver? A two two year olds hands are not physically capable of it without the weapon being cocked, locked and ready to rock.If this is truly the case? That was a truly stupid woman,and Darwin was correct.

+Jim Gadsden they are saying that the hammer was back on the revolver!!! Even without the child, something bad could have happened. Hard to be leave that she was half cocked. Well whatever she was afraid of, her fears did kill her. And the poor child.

This is one more way for stupid to remove it's self from life . yes its a tragity that this happened but its the responsibility of every ccw owner to keep thare weapons under control at all times but u can't fix stupid. She fucked up and pages the price. Nothing different than someone trying to pick up a rattle snake. Only good thing she got shot not a another customer. Ccw classes teach you ( well tryed in this case ) to holster your side arm in a safe way . in a purse is not safe for a revolver hammer gets bumped wrong it goes off . by the way they make purses with built in holsters that would have made this whole thing a happy new years but stupid came into play. But look at it on the good side one less dumbass in this world

+Bunny Voodoo Bun Yep! She could have just dropped her purse and the gun could have discharged.Very tragic.In the big picture though. In a country with 320,000,000 people in it, and millions and millions and millions of guna around. The average number of accidental firearm fatalities from 1998 thru 2012 were about 800 per year. (I googled "annual firearm fatalities") Thats a pretty good safety record.

Oh and for all u talking about knives. You only have an advantage within 20 feet I'll use my 45 at 35 feet and put you an your ass . plus think of what would have happened if the kid staged its self or worse another customer. Bottom line it don't matter what you carry use common sense. Secure your weapons .

+Jim Gadsden oh I'm with you, but the media doesn't care about that. All they care about is their biases, and their adjenda. They will take this and run with it, as will the schools (my sis is a teacher).

ok, so one bad thing happens and all the worms like the media who are scared of they're own shadow and belive every little thing that Obama says, the voice of how everyone should live.no , if you dont like our freedom, go to Cuba or China or Mexico or Korea. this country was built by strong people of curage and integrity of freedom and liberty not socialism and fear and control.

Noah, Thats the right question, Why? Maybe she didnt wont to live in fear? Of what, we'll never know, but in american land of the free, it was her right to carry a gun. People die from stupid accidents everyday, and hopefully life go's on for the families.

Some people are born just dumb, takes a text book to figure out that fire burns, or duh should I touch that burner.. Guns dont kill, people do, so do animals. I say people have the right to protect themselves, and not be idiots, educate yourselves, that is if you have a half brain or more!

The issue here has nothing to do guns, the real issue should be people who are to ignorant to be raising children. At least maybe now this child has a chance to be raised by someone with an ounce of common sense.

We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves.

+Chris Oropeza what u think is a threat the judge might not think is a threat and threats are out there and u don't even know it's coming ,like armed robbery,rape,assult,ect.so are u saying u have to be a victum before u can conceal and carry? That's the dumbest thing I heard.i agree u should be educated in the classroom and hands on.a person has to b e ready to take a life to save there own and then live with there decision but not be hurt in order to carry a gun.just my thoughts.

+Ender Shot​​ because a knife requires you to be within arm's length if you were to be attacked. If that person so happens to be much larger and stronger than you is going to end poorly for you. Unless of course, you live in some fantasy world where everyone is deadly with a throwing knife. Lady should have picked a safer way to carry I feel bad for both her and the kid. You raging liberals have to understand though. You guys pointing out a few cases of irresponsible owners and screaming that guns need to be banned is the same as saying cars need to be banned because there sure are a lot of irresponsible drivers. If they can't handle a car then i guess you just can't trust anyone with a car.

Data released by the National Safety Council demonstrates that unintentional firearm-related fatalities continue to remain at historically low levels. In fact, in the last two decades the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities has declined by 58 percent – from 1,441 unintentional fatalities in 1991 to 600 in 2011. Firearms are involved in ½ percent of all unintentional fatalities in the United States. In a side-by-side comparison, firearms rank among the lowest causes of injury.

+Sheldon Anim-Addo Its not liberal propaganda if you are asking why the safety was not on! People have to realize that conceal carry should not be in a purse. But in a conceal holster or like one person in this forum said…in those fake sneaky-pete holsters that look like a smart phone carrier. Besides that accidental firearms deaths nationally is at 0.5%.

+11B30Inf Thanks for making that point clear. The gun was in her PURSE. Yes, she had a CCW to have it, but not the brains to handle it properly. As such, it cost the woman her life and untold mental suffering to the child.

To all of you who can't write a coherent sentence that is even close to grammatically correct English: stop speaking, you're making those who have legitimate arguments for owning a CCW look bad.

To those who say "more people die driving cars" or "more babies drown in buckets" you're just idiots. Cars are made for driving. Buckets are made for carrying water (in the example of babies drowning in them; you can of course carry other things in them). Guns are made for killing. You can slip on the sidewalk and kill yourself. So what? That has ZERO bearing on a discussion concerning firearms. Their sole purpose is to kill. To those who say, "I use mine as a deterrent" I call bullshit. If it was ONLY ever to deter, then you'd never load it. You do load it though, in case you need to kill someone. Yes, killing someone to deter them from killing you is absolutely a valid point. I'm just trying to make clear that a car and a firearm is not a one-to-one comparison. If you're making that argument you need to rethink your logic course because that's not even close to a one-to-one comparison.

For the record, I'm not anti-gun. I grew up in a family of hunters and with a dad who was a cop. I've been around firearms my entire life. That said, our current system isn't properly implemented, specifically surrounding CCW. And much of that is because of asshats who hear the word "regulation" and flip the fuck out that people are going to take their guns. They live in this world that doesn't exist. Nobody wants to take away ALL THE GUNS (OK some do, but not most). In many states you can get a CCW with a Ruger .38 and then carry a S&M 29 .44 revolver. That's not even in the same category. I DO have issue with that system.

Having issue with that doesn't make me a commie or hater of freedom. It does prove you live in a revisionist history, a fake world of gun toting Americans (I'm not referring to hunting weapons). Historically, we've been pretty pro gun legislation. Not ANTI-GUN, just pro gun legislation. In DC, it was against the law to have a loaded handgun in your home without a gun lock. Now, anybody who's been around guns is going to say, "but of course you should have a gun lock." I agree. Totally. Except that in 1976 a group looked to overturn that. It wasn't even the NRA, but small group of libertarian lawyers that brought it up. It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own a weapon "in common use" to protect "hearth and home." So call me names and pretend I want to take your guns away. I really don't give a fuck what you think. You came to my post, not the other way around.

+Paul Spoerry just admit it, guns are safer than some things we own lol. That's our point. We own other objects that will more likely take a life than our firearms and they were created to kill. So that actually strengthens our arguments. And sorry for my sentence structure I don't have time to edit on the fly writings.

I leave less than 10 miles where this occurred, very much a horrific situation, but there was many things wrong here. Not only was she shot by her toddler, she had several other older children with her and multiple other family member there at the time. When carrying a fire arm, you must be extremely careful at all times, especially when you have kids around. However, we in Idaho still believe in our second amendment right and so does her family regardless of what happened. This will only allow the anti-gun nuts something to use in their campaigns.

Horrific though this is (especially for the child) this is somewhat the best case – the person who was irresponsible was the one that lost their life.+Devin Hill What other things could a child grab to kill someone with like this? Whats wrong about, like with cars, to demand training ? Clearly not everyone with guns should have them, as they are a danger to others.

+Devin Hill Um… no. The reason that cars have been getting safer is precisely because they are regulated. And those regulations are getting stiffer every year. Again, you're comparing two completely different things and saying it's a one-to-one comparison when clearly it's not. Flawed logic doesn't make you right no matter how much you want it to.

As an aside, a friend on FB told me that purse carry is totally legit and safe. However, he stipulated that is if you use a gun designed to hold the firearm. While I'm glad to know they actually design purses to do this for those who DO carry, I'd wager $100 that most women who carry them in a purse aren't using a specially designed purse.

To follow up on +Thomas Wrobel… training. Like I said before, my primary issue with CCW is that you can get trained on one gun and then carry one completely different. This is akin to getting a license in a Ford Fusion and then driving an 18 wheeler, or a motorcycle… all are vehicles, none drive the same.

+Thomas Wrobel​ I'm for training but you can't train for safety like this. It's common sense and being gun smart. If I get training and as qualified in firearms as an officer, could I carry as he does?

+Thomas Wrobel and I'm not saying guns are not deadly. I'm saying things we own and use daily, as some people carry daily, are more deadly than a firearm and kill more people than a firearm. I carry a one daily and drive daily, yet driving kills more people than when people carry loaded guns in public. My point being loaded firearms in public is not deadly at all because these situations are very very rare.

+Devin Hill Again, you have training to use a car. Its the law in every state. Its not about other things not being deadly, its that nothing (or at least nothing I can think of) is as easily get hold of and kill as a gun.Almost everything else as deadly is either harder to get hold of, or cant kill someone as quick or easily.Would you be happy to be on a road with untrained drivers? Whys walking down a street with untrained gun-owners different?

+Devin Hill "If I get training and as qualified in firearms as an officer, could I carry as he does?" Well, considering police officers are trained, and can and DO carry (I never went to dinner with my dad, a cop, where he had less than two fire arms on his person) I suppose you could. Cops also get continuous training and are issued specific types of firearms. The department decides which hand gun the department will carry, they standardize on that, and everyone carries and trains with that one side-arm.

As +Thomas Wrobel points out, and I did as well, there is training for a vehicle and licenses for different types of vehicles. That's not the case with a CCW in most states… one license, any hand gun is typical. I know I know, CCW requires training. But let's be realistic here. Most states issue a CCW after one day of training. ONE.DAY.OF.TRAINING. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Training_requirements). Compare that to the method most go through to get a drivers license (being a teen getting a license) you have to get a permit, drive with a licensed driver for a period of time (which BTW at least here in Missouri has been extended so it takes longer), pass a written and supervised test, etc. It's differs in many states for non-teen drivers but many states require some form of behind-the-wheel supervision for new drivers of all ages. http://www.dmv.org/drivers-training.php

+Paul Spoerry​ really it was very easy to get a license. Get a permit for a bit, take driving test and bam, license. It's really not as difficult to get a license as a gun permit. If anything its harder to obtain a permit in most states. If it was the same as getting a drivers license as a gun permit I wouldn't argue. I'd even retrain every 3 months because I just like shooting and training si much. But to put those kinds of hurdles on people is infringement of their 2a. If your a lawful citizen under the 2a you have the right to bear arms. I'm not against training but politicians will take it to far and to many fees may infringe on poorer people's ability to bear arms.

I would never recommend carrying in a purse. That alone has always seemed "unsafe" to me. Even the purses that are designed for it–most criminals victimizing a woman will go after her purse. Then what would she do? On the other hand the criminal doesn't know how to react to a woman "grabbing" at herself (drawing her firearm).

A safety switch would not have prevented this tragedy. Having the good sense to not have a loaded, cocked, and ready-to-fire handgun tumbling loosely inside an open purse is the only thing that would have prevented it.

The below applies to all the accidental shootings that happened while the accidental shooter had h{is,er} hand inside the trigger guard and their finger on the trigger.

The proper description for this and all my "applies to" above is that the toddler reached into the purse, grabbed the gun, pulled the trigger, and then the gun went off.

A true accidental shooting or discharge occurs when the firearm goes off without someone pulling the trigger. That has actually happened with a defective firearm or where a shooter's clothing, example cords with wooden or metal balls on the end of the cords, got stuck inside the trigger guard.

One more thing. If the hammer was cocked, the trigger pull weight is significantly reduced (hair trigger), making it easy for anyone to unintentionally pull the trigger. If the hammer is down, on must handguns, then it is more difficult to unintentionally pull the trigger.

It wasn't CC's fault. The woman left a loaded and cocked pistol in an open purse, well in reach of the child. No laws would have stopped it. Stop standing on her grave and using this tradgey as a way of promoting your anti gun views. Your party stood on the graves of the dead kids from Newton, and they will try to do the same here.

Thankfully, people like you are now in the minority. According to recent polls, the majority of Americans today are pro-gun.

+Jim Gadsden I assumed it was an auto since no 2 year-old, that I have ever known, could ever pull a double action trigger. Because of the heavier trigger pull in most cases, a revolver in the purse is generally not as dangerous as a Glock (for example) with a loaded chamber. Given it was a 29 year-old woman, it could have been a Jennings, a Lorcin, or some other piece of shit. Not to pick on Glocks, but they and other modern autos tend to have fairly light triggers (that could conceivably be pulled by a 2 year-old). I carry mine with one in the pipe, but I use the "clearing barrel" method of sidearm handling I learned in the military.

+paul nunya no if you have a gun on you a round should always be chambered an unloaded gun is as good as carrying a rock in your pocket! If you like to blame something blame not carrying the gun correctly!! A purse full of junk and a loaded weapon dont mix anything at that point can make the gun go off.

+Jim Gadsden ware did you get revolver from reading just a story we are made to read is not always 100% correct. Not to mention it stated, causing the gun to go off, so again a gun in a purse full of junk dosent mix something was most likely inside the trigger guard when the child reached in it made the gun go off chances are the childs finger was never on the trigger! Could have bern keys a makeup pencil anything small enough to wedge between the trigger and guard.

+Jd Vig I've been following this story. Bottom line, a gun was in a purse, there was a cartridge in the chamber, a two year old pulled the trigger and killed the mother. I've been led to believe it was a revolver, I could be wrong, it really doesn't matter. This is a simple case of Darwin's theory being correct! Thankfully no innocents were injured!

My sympathy goes out to the families involved. The last attention they need is the press they will receive from the anti gun crowd.And Jim you shouldn't confuse Darwinism with poor firearm handling practices. A two year old is about as innocent as anybody can be that willingly walks through the doors of a "wallyworld" no mater what state it is in.

+Jim Gadsden I have not researched the story. I just read it. I would need to see the police report before I would believe that anyone would be dumb enough to cock the hammer on a loaded revolver and let it bump around inside a purse. It is much more believable that she would have had a Glock 26 or maybe a cheap, blow-back .380 with one in the pipe, given the age of the child.

+dale brooks Poor firearm handling practices kind of goes hand in hand with stupidly. I call it the Darwin effect. You know, survival of the fittest. It was in no way the two year olds fault. The mother did not survive because of poor firearm handling practices/stupidly.Hence the Darwin effect!

No, external safety levers are useless. The only thing that would have saved this woman is if she had been responsible enough and had enough common sense to not leave a loaded and cocked gun LOOSE in her purse. A holster and positive control of the firearm is the only thing that would have made this outcome impossible.

+Josh Bahr there are indeed safety devices on most handguns. A Glock will not fire unless the trigger is pressed fully to the rear. An XD is the same, but also has to have its grip safety disengaged. Most Sigs have an external safety. All 1911s have external safety levers and grip safeties.

+Josh Bahr The way she had her gun, had she just dropped her purse the gun could have discharged.This was a two year old toddler, not even a kid yet, just past baby stage. Think how big and how strong a two year olds hands are.No way this child discharged this weapon without it being cocked, locked and ready to rock!

Lets stop talking about all this if the safty was on shit. I do agree truly bad gun handling practices on the mother! SAFETY'S ARE NOT FOOL PROOF guns will fire with the so called safty on lets stop saying if the safty was on. Defensive hand guns for self defense do not come with a safty there made to point and shoot with no bells and whistles!!! In the article it stated a small caliber a 380 or smaller, normally dont have safety's. Again were going on an article that was written for the public to read most of the article is bullshit except some one dieing due to being careless!!!!!

+Chris Oropeza​ That would suck! In Florida the only reason you need to get a conceal and carry permit, is to want one. You get the packet, fill out the paperwork, send it to Tallahassee, and wait. About six weeks later you'll get a card that looks something like a drivers license. Now you can legally conceal and carry.

+Joe DambrosioWrong, concealed technically means hidden.If it cannot be seen, it is hidden.The news article should read, "Toddler reaches into purse, finds gun and pulls trigger, killing Mom"They make it sound like the gun has a mind of it's own.Typical gun grabber propaganda

Yes because one case of one kid getting ahold of the moms gun, because she was dumb enough to let her kid get in the first place, completely outweighs the thousands of other cases where rapes, robberies, and even murders have been stopped or prevented because conceal and carry is a thing.

IM SORRY. THIS IS VERY SAD BUT SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS. THIS WOMAN WAS NOT A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER. IT IS HER FAULT THIS HAPPENED. OTHER GUN OWNERS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE ACTIONS OF A TINY MINISCULE PORTION OF PEOPLE WHO ACT IRRESPONSIBLY.

+Greg S i agree, they like to take very rare stories like when rifles are involved to pass the "assault rifle ban" and explain how these weapons are so horrible, but they leave out the fact that they are responsible for less than 1% of gun deaths. propaganda that has worked in many countrys but now people know these facts and call them out when they use the same old tricks that worked in many other countries.

responsible people should not be punished for others, no matter how sad or how big of a story is, we need to look at the rights we were promised instead, and call out propaganda when recycled.

+Ender Shot a knife is a bad weapon for defense when almost everyone else owns a gun because it is their right, knives are also not very good for defense if your a small women being attacked by a large man, one example of many. you need to get very close and know how to use it, without it being took from you, or without being shot before even making the blade close to the bad guy. horrible choice, not many people are ready for knife battle to be blunt.

+Paul Spoerry first i'm glad so many are admitting how horrible this story is, i am more happy that people realize that when horrible things happen we do not loose our rights. i hope people do learn from this, but after watching so much tyt it is refreshing no to see everyone exploiting this incident and instead talking about how it could have been avoided. plus not allowing the propaganda like tyt reports to spread to rational thinkers. its ok to feel bad, but support that this country clearly promises us, in our very second rule, and has been spoke greatly about not being fooled into allowing this second right to be exploited and eventually removed like in most countries. they used the same methods for these countrys and i am happy people see through them finally. good job posters, not used to seeing so much common sense and respect for a sad loss.

+Jd Vig​ you obviously have no idea how a gun works. Lmao, guns will fire with the do called safety on. Um, the ENTIRE purpose of a safety is to make the gun not fire. I have several small caliber, and sub compact handguns with safeties that fully function.

+Jim Gadsden I don't believe the type of weapon has been released. If it was a revolver, how did/would they (investigator) know the hammer was cocked inside the purse. If it was a revolver (with a hammer), how do we know she carried it cocked? It could be possessible the hammer snagged on something in the purse.

My point is there is way to many unknowns at this point. It is defenitly a tragic situation. I do think there are some safety points that can still be made. When carrying concealed, you must always maintain control. If using a purse, it should be kept on your person/in your control. Safeties are good but not all firearms have them (revolvers especially) and they are not fullproof.

+Jeff Fox An NBC news report said it was a 9mm. It didn't say if it was a revolver or not. I'm not sure were I got the idea it was a revolver. It also said the purse was made for conceal and carry. What ever type of

+Jeff Fox What ever type of weapon it was, a two year old discharged it and shot his mother in the head.Thàt means it was cocked locked and ready to rock. Remember how big and strong and two year olds hands are.

For 1 she Shouldn't have had it in her purse,my theory for instance if something had occurred in the store, she could have save seconds and many lifes if she was carrying it on her body , possibility? she would be here today, for note recommendation carry a LCP 9mm on u ,is concealed to me… (she will be missed protecting her child and others bad move though)

If you own a firearm it should be mandatory that you take safety training, so you won't be stupid enough to walk around with a loaded firearm with the safety off, and one up the chamber. Of course this could be a case of an overly smart toddler who didn't like the fact that mom wouldn't get Pop Tarts.

+Stuart Mallett​ I googled annual firearm fatalities statistics. From 1998 – 2012 there were an average of about 800 accidental fatalities by firearms per year. Considering there are 320,000,000 people with millions and millions and millions of guns. Thats not a bad safety record.Now lets talk about automobiles.I like the pop tart theory.

+David Gary I know good Christians, and you make them look bad. Also, Christianity and being a Republican don't go hand in hand. I know many Christians who are Democrats. When you have a myopic one sided, ignorant view of the world you and spew it all over the place you just come off looking like an idiot.

+Jim Gadsden It's not a one to one, or even logical, comparison. In most states to obtain a CCW you're required to take a one day class and you can carry any handgun. In all states for teens you have to drive on a permit for a long time (longer now than when I was a teen), take a written and driving test, etc. Many states are doing the same for adults getting a first time license. Additionally, getting your driver's license on a prius doesn't mean you can drive an 18 wheeler or motorcycle. You can get a CCW with a pea shooter 9mm yet carry a big ass .45 like Dirty Harry. Not remotely the same handling on the two. If you get a CDL to drive a big rig, or even to be a cabbie, you can be drug tested at any time and have it revoked (arguments for or against aren't really the point here). Not so for a CCW. Then there is the sticky thorn of while cars can kill, they aren't designed to do so whereas a firearms design is to kill (not counting hunting rifles, etc that's different and also harder to conceal). And yes I know there are stats that show vehicles are now dangerous than a concealed firearm, to which I would simply reply that vehicles, licenses, registration, etc are all highly regulated. I also know many would say the point of a firearm isn't too kill but deter. To which I would simply ask then why do they need bullets? Point being… The car to gun argument is not a one to one and isn't useful for the discussion.

If you read the other follow-up stories, it sounds like the woman was indeed a responsible gun owner. She just made the mistake of assuming a hidden compartment in her purse would not be found by her 2-year-old. She also made the mistake that thousands of women across the country make when concealed carrying; she carried off her body in a purse designed for purse carry. Her husband had purchased this purse for her for Christmas. Sad.

+Paul Spoerry I am a retired truck driver, (25 years) you forgot about the regular required physical. You don't need to tell me about operating a commercial vehicle conducting inter or intra state commerce.I am glad I chose a state tolive were they don't keep track of my guns.None of their business or yours!

+Paul Spoerry There are a lot more legal requirements for truck drivers. I don't see how I am helping you to make your point?My point is if you want to save lives your efforts might be better spent elsewhere.Mabie swimming pools or boats or rv's.

+Thomas Wrobel Where I live, if I have a gun and I want to sell it to you in my house, that is perfectly legal.There are limits to how many. If I want to exceed these limits then I need to get a dealers license and keep records.What your talking about is not the problem here.If you take the total number of gun related fatalities, take out the guns that are already illegal, in the big picture the number is pretty insignificant.I don't want the government or you knowing about my guns.

"if I have a gun and I want to sell it to you in my house, that is perfectly legal. There are limits to how many. If I want to exceed these limits then I need to get a dealers license and keep records." Yeah see that's fucking stupid. Plain and simple. How does someone know they're buying a legal gun? They don't? How do you track which are bought and sold legally when you have no control over them changing hands? You don't.

Why are you afraid of the government knowing you have guns? They know if you have a boat, a car, etc. I mean that sounds shady as fuck. And if you seriously go off on the "in case I gotta rise up" I'll just remind you that they have tanks, bombers, the largest military in the world, etc and you owning any level of firearms ain't gunna do shit.

+Paul Spoerry​ What you are going off on is not the problem.What you are talking about is a criminal selling another criminal a gun that is already illegal. Go after that all you want.I got an idea, why don't you make heroin illegal, oh it already is. See how that works. Regulate guns up the wazoo, then only criminals have guns.It's already easier for me to get an illegal gun than a legal one.The new class of criminal, the American Gun Owner.

+Jim Gadsden By that logic we should let anyone sale pharmaceutical drugs.After all, people selling dodgy drugs to eachother would already be criminals, therefore its pointless to be illegal!Regulating drugs up the wazoo, then only criminals have pharmaceutical drugs!

Wait a mo…no..they dont. Because people can legally buy them from people that know what they are doing, upto sensible limits depending on their need.Because, you know, they can kill. Just you mind, unlike some things that can kill people around you too.

+Jim Gadsden Maybe you came in late, or just didn't read the comment, or just don't get it… I dunno. I don't have issue with people owning guns. I do have issue with CCW is implemented in most states. I do have issue with people just being able to sell firearms unregulated in their home, craigslist, Facebook, whatever.

And as +Thomas Wrobel just nailed on the head… the logic of your argument is utterly flawed.

+Thomas Wrobel Are you talking about hillbilly heroin.I live in the pain management capital of the USA.They have actually slowed the doctors prescribing pharmaceuticals to anyone that walks in the door. Hence the rise in heroin.

+Jim Gadsden Considering you made the argument that gun sales within your home to another person cannot be tracked, and that you don't want the government knowing how many guns you have, how exactly are you jumping to the conclusion that there guns are the reason for violent less crime? Oh and add in the fact that in the mid-90s, the NRA helped push through legislation preventing the (CDC) from funding any scientific research that "may be used to advocate or promote gun control." and how again are you making this conclusion? Cite your source.

+Paul Spoerry I'm not jumping to any conclusions.Just saying more guns, more legally concealed weapons, laws that don't require us to retreat in the face of danger. Less crime.That with the fact that the places with the most gun violence have the most gun control. A lot of coincidences.Humm, just wondering.

+Paul Spoerry No real sources. Just information I've absorbed. Chicago and LA are the best examples of high gun violence and aggressive gun control. Florida would be an example of more guns less crime. Not saying there hasn't been mistakes. But I attribute those to over zealous prosecution and goofy judges. Zimmerman/Martin comes to mind.Give me a source that shows aggressive gun control has reduced crime.

+Jim Gadsden Information you've absorbed doesn't really count as a source. Also, when YOU make a claim the onus isn't on someone else to disprove you.

But whatever….* Harvard Injury Control Research Center – "Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ (2004)

* The largest study of gun violence in the United States…Results: Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.Conclusions: We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph (2013)

Much of this idea that everybody packing heat is safer was pushed after More Guns, Less Crime came out, a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. However, after a 2010 re-examination of Lott's work and the NRC's previous analysis of his work, as well as six years of additional data, found that "… Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime." – The United States National Research Council. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599 (2010). There was of course those who supported Lot's conclusions. Unfortunately for them "…all except one were published before coding and aggregation flaws of Lott's datasets came to light". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Support

Actually it's nimrods like you who support the continued restriction of our 2nd Ammt rights that cause unfortunate situations like this,and I would ad what a scumbag you are for using tragedies like this to make a political point in like fashion to your shithead president numbnuts did in every tragedy he could with the only exceptions being the hundreds of violent gun deaths of blacks in his home of Chicago and the deaths of Border Patrol agent Brian Terri as a result of the Obama gun running scheme Fast and Furious. Hmm what about you , did you make any posts on those issues Mr.concerned citizen ? In summary you are happy to comment on the tragedies that suit your political ideologies but really don't care about people in general. That makes you a worthless hypocrite like most antI-American detritus libtards. This goes out to Simon Cousins also. You coward! Where were you when the NRA was arming blacks in the South to defend themselves? Filthy low life!

I scanned your post cuz… well… it looked like BS. And that was confirmed when I saw that NRA arming blacks in the South. You DO realize that NRA is a fundamentally different one than is in existence now right? It's called history man, go read up on it.

+Paul Spoerry Yea, bla bla bla. I'd like to see a study done were if we armed the hardworking law abiding citizens in the killing fields of Chicago were guns are illegal, what would happen.The people at Harvard and Stanford have no common sense and don't live in the real world!

When handed data compiled and analyzed from several of our countries best schools it's just met with "nuh-uh". Sorry if you FEEL that's not how it should be, but unless you can show credible studying contradicting it you're just flapping your gums. Seriously, with a "common sense" response like that +Jim Gadsden you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.